RedInker said:There are parts in Lorndon where some Muslim Fanatics are/were. enforcing Sharia law even though UK law would be above it. A ban would ensure the States law is the only law allowed to be enforced. As long as the ban doesn't affect affect the rights of Muslims to worshipy. It then it shouldn't really be considered to be descriminatory.

But, if they broke THE law by enforcing Sharia law, they should just be arrested, right? How were they enforcing Sharia law above UK law?

What I mean is, it is already a requirement to follow THE law. It's already banned not to follow it.

I just don't quite get it.

Heres a link to the story. It's from The Sun but I'm sure several papers reported it.

It's not allowed by UK law unless an individual recognises the authority of a sharia court or something like that.

Ok, it's The Sun, but I read the whole thing nevertheless.

Never does it say that they actually enforced Sharia law above UK law. It says they wanted to, but the council would still act against any act that would go against UK law, of course. Look at this paragraphs:

Yesterday Waltham Forest Council said it had removed the posters and was combing through CCTV footage to help police prosecute any offenders.

Council leader Chris Robbins said: “People shouldn’t get the wrong idea about our borough because a handful of small-minded idiots decided to deface our streets with ridiculous posters.”

What I mean is, the law is above Sharia law anyway, so this bill doesn't change anything.

oh good, now if just they could enact the same kind of ruling about biblical law with christianity

**The lover of all things Gaming**

Proud owner of a PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360Proud Owner of PSP, Vita, DS, and 3DS

I truly do love them all, but that doesn't mean they are without flaws. I see the good and bad in all, and while I certainly do have a favorite, that doesn't mean I don't love them all. I criticize becuase I Care.

The laws are fair and justified. A minority of Muslims should not be able to enact barbaric and draconian laws onto the majority. Sharia law does not belong in the Western democratic world. Why should a minority religious fundamentalist group enforce their beliefs, values and laws onto the majority?

RedInker said:There are parts in Lorndon where some Muslim Fanatics are/were. enforcing Sharia law even though UK law would be above it. A ban would ensure the States law is the only law allowed to be enforced. As long as the ban doesn't affect affect the rights of Muslims to worshipy. It then it shouldn't really be considered to be descriminatory.

But, if they broke THE law by enforcing Sharia law, they should just be arrested, right? How were they enforcing Sharia law above UK law?

What I mean is, it is already a requirement to follow THE law. It's already banned not to follow it.

I just don't quite get it.

Heres a link to the story. It's from The Sun but I'm sure several papers reported it.

It's not allowed by UK law unless an individual recognises the authority of a sharia court or something like that.

Ok, it's The Sun, but I read the whole thing nevertheless.

Never does it say that they actually enforced Sharia law above UK law. It says they wanted to, but the council would still act against any act that would go against UK law, of course. Look at this paragraphs:

Yesterday Waltham Forest Council said it had removed the posters and was combing through CCTV footage to help police prosecute any offenders.

Council leader Chris Robbins said: “People shouldn’t get the wrong idea about our borough because a handful of small-minded idiots decided to deface our streets with ridiculous posters.”

What I mean is, the law is above Sharia law anyway, so this bill doesn't change anything.

The bill just re-enforces the fact that US/Kansas law is the only law that is true and that Sharia law shouldn't be considered when deciding divorce etc.

Hmmm... Ok, again: "But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties."

Really, these people can choose to follow these rules, but if you get a Sharia "divorce" and try to marry legally, you still won't be able to. You need a real divorce. If they choose to stone someone to death they'll get arrested surely. None of these things change with the bill, I'm guessing.

I mean, it's not like I'm totally against what the bill says (I agree the law is above everything and don't have any sympathy towards Sharia law). Just find it kind of pointless.

No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

They are basically certifying at a state level that the intent and letter of the law must be the same. There is no reason that anyone should expect their holy laws to have any bearing on any case, disposition, or service. I for one applaud this, but not necessarily the reason behind why this was done. The sad truth is that religious justification is by far too often accepted in the court system. Sometimes to justify positions with no real bearing under the law, or to excuse why something was done unlawfully.

I honestly don't see how it is fair for someone to get a special exception to follow another set of laws. While I on the other hand only get to work from one set of laws. The way I am reading it Jews, Christians, and any number of other faiths won't be allowed to use their religion as a justification to do something outside existing laws, or in some cases directly at odds with those laws.

Anyhow, considering how amorphous I understand Sharia Law to be, I don't really understand the need for this legislation. Any contract that says something so general as "terms are defined/similar to those of Sharia Law" would be too ambiguous to use, while those who state specifics of it should still be enforceable so long as they do not run afoul of a legal prohibition.

Basically, this seems like a safety blanket for something that doesn't really happen in Kansas anyways, and is in no danger of happening anytime soon.

RedInker said:There are parts in Lorndon where some Muslim Fanatics are/were. enforcing Sharia law even though UK law would be above it. A ban would ensure the States law is the only law allowed to be enforced. As long as the ban doesn't affect affect the rights of Muslims to worshipy. It then it shouldn't really be considered to be descriminatory.

But, if they broke THE law by enforcing Sharia law, they should just be arrested, right? How were they enforcing Sharia law above UK law?

What I mean is, it is already a requirement to follow THE law. It's already banned not to follow it.

I just don't quite get it.

Heres a link to the story. It's from The Sun but I'm sure several papers reported it.

It's not allowed by UK law unless an individual recognises the authority of a sharia court or something like that.

Ok, it's The Sun, but I read the whole thing nevertheless.

Never does it say that they actually enforced Sharia law above UK law. It says they wanted to, but the council would still act against any act that would go against UK law, of course. Look at this paragraphs:

Yesterday Waltham Forest Council said it had removed the posters and was combing through CCTV footage to help police prosecute any offenders.

Council leader Chris Robbins said: “People shouldn’t get the wrong idea about our borough because a handful of small-minded idiots decided to deface our streets with ridiculous posters.”

What I mean is, the law is above Sharia law anyway, so this bill doesn't change anything.

The bill just re-enforces the fact that US/Kansas law is the only law that is true and that Sharia law shouldn't be considered when deciding divorce etc.

Hmmm... Ok, again: "But the informal councils have no legal powers and they cannot impose any penalties."

Really, these people can choose to follow these rules, but if you get a Sharia "divorce" and try to marry legally, you still won't be able to. You need a real divorce. If they choose to stone someone to death they'll get arrested surely. None of these things change with the bill, I'm guessing.

I mean, it's not like I'm totally against what the bill says (I agree the law is above everything and don't have any sympathy towards Sharia law). Just find it kind of pointless.

I... THINK it was due to a specific New York Case.

I vaguely recall someone getting out of an assault charge because they attacked an atheist who insulted mohhamad to the guys face.

They used Sharia law as an excuse for the attack... suggesting that in doing so, the Atheist was actually the one who started the "assault" because in Islamic law attacking the prophet verbally is just as bad if not worse.

Currently Playing:

If this law is supposed to stop Muslims from living and acting from the Islamic laws, then it is indeed pointless.

We made a very recent survey here in Sweden. Dressed as vulnerable muslim wives, women would go to several mosques and ask their lead imams different questions based on their imaginary scenario:

- What should I do now that my husband wants to marry another woman? - My husband sometimes beat me and force me to have sex with him, should I go to the police?

Only ONE out of TEN imams (who represent the entire Muslim population in their respective communities) recommended that the women should go to the police, despite these obvious violations of our laws. SIX out of TEN told them not to go to the police.

Before this survey, the same investigators openly asked the very same imams the same questions in front of a camera. Then they obviously said things like "Of course the thought of a man having more than one wife in the Swedish society is absurd. Men and female are entirely equal."

I can't know for sure if this 9/10 number applies to the rest of our Muslim population (and it probably doesn't), but it's a good indicator of how dangerous this religion can be due to its suppression of having your own interpretations of the Koran.